User Panel
I get why people are saying the shooter is going to prison, but... I think he's gonna walk.
|
|
Quoted: She is now on the hook for full child and everything support. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I’m My wife would have killed that dude and his ex wife too. She is now on the hook for full child and everything support. Nope, now she gets paid by social security until the kids are 18. |
|
Quoted: Do you have a duty to retreat in Texas? No? Okay, so where did shooter violate Texas statute by going outside, onto his own porch, to confront a trespasser? He didn't violate a statute by going outside, onto his own porch, to confront a trespasser. It's a red herring. He violated the statute by pulling the trigger multiple times. *That* is the problem. If I were on a jury, I would not buy the argument that his life was in a clear and immediate danger that warranted lethal force. It just doesn't seem like it at all. Contrast that with KR case. Crickets. So many people here seem incapable of applying basic tenets of the law to a given situation. If A is prohibited, and B is not prohibited, examine situation and see whether it meets A or B. My point gets illustrated immediately: do you have a legal right to be on someone else's property? No. Not even if you're there to pick up a kid (who apparently isn't even present). Or put it another way, and imagine the kid is literally the property of the dad..let's say it's a stolen car. Shooter has stolen the vehicle and hidden it inside his garage. Car owner shows up, and refuses to leave. Is it trespassing? Absolutely. Does the car owner have the legal right to forcibly enter the dwelling to get his property back? No. He would be committing a new, separate offense. Dad didn't have a legal right to be on the property once told to leave. Homeowner steps out with a firearm to defend himself, family, and property. Decedent explicitly stated his intent to take the firearm from homeowner and attack him. Bingo, the intent is formed. Decedent then starts grappling with him. Ability and opportunity come into play. It's a good shoot, period. The people here saying otherwise have been brainwashed into thinking we have a legal duty to avoid all confrontation ever. Sure, it's the best policy to take for your own life...but that doesn't make it the law. Loudly stating that you intend to take the lawful resident's firearm away and attack him, and then proceeding to do so, is the threat. People need to get the fucking word "unarmed" out of their vocabulary. We are tool-using, murderous primates who managed to claw our way to the top of the global apex predator spot because of our brains, and the ability to use our brains to find exciting new ways to impart lethal violence upon others every bright new day. Scour history, and you can find enough graves to cover the entire surface area of Lichtenstein with men, women, and children who were killed by "unarmed" opponents. When a man announces his intent to inflict great bodily injury to you, and then starts down the road of doing so, the only sane response is to begin inflicting central nervous system hits with the closest slugthrower at hand. View Quote and that's what they will decide in the courtroom, if this argument holds water or not. Do you really want to stake your life upon the hope they will accept this argument, or buy the DA argument that where was no clear and present danger? That words are words. I wouldn't. I am going to go on a limb here and suggest that this argument won't work in the courtroom and they will convict him of something This is especially aggravated that he was there for a legitimate reason, namely to get his child, even if he acted in a retarded way, they will find that it did not justify lethal force. |
|
What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”?
He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger. He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot. At no point did I see the shooters life in danger. |
|
Quoted: What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”? He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger. He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot. At no point did I see the shooters life in danger. View Quote So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. |
|
Quoted: How hard is it to just say to the guy, "I'm sorry, let's try to figure this out. Let's talk about it." View Quote Someone's read Verbal Judo. Attached File |
|
Quoted: I had to leave this thread yesterday to cool off, but I'm fine now, so I came back to see how far out of control this potential dumpster fire has gotten. . . This post sums up my feelings quite well. Excellent post, @garr - thank you! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Kyle was 100% not guilty, he was fighting for his life against a group of rabid evil commie Felon thugs that would have killed him in the blink of an eye if he let them. The opinion I stated above of this shooting is Not My Legal opinion, weather a good legal shoot or not I can't say as I dont know anything about Texas SD Law. The boyfriend inserted himself & his weapon unnecessarily into a highly emotional confrontation between a man & his ex/Estranged (I'm not sure of their relationship status) wife regarding the couple's child. Even many normally Sensible upstanding citizens lose it when it comes to divorce/Infidelity/Child custody situations & they don't need to be aggravated by so called boyfriend's getting involved. IMO the shooter is a stupid scumbag & i hope he rots in jail! This post sums up my feelings quite well. Excellent post, @garr - thank you! Pretty much The bottom line it does not meet the criteria of "My life was in imminent danger" standard and you can't just blow retards away who stand on your porch and ran their mounts off. Trespassing - maybe. use of lethal force? No. No jury will be sympathetic too that. This is especially aggravated by the child involved. As this places him there for a legitimate reason. What a dumpster fire. |
|
|
Quoted: Pretty much The bottom line it does not meet the criteria of "My life was in imminent danger" standard and you can't just blow retards away who stand on your porch and ran their mounts off. Trespassing - maybe. use of lethal force? No. No jury will be sympathetic too that. This is especially aggravated by the child involved. As this places him there for a legitimate reason. What a dumpster fire. View Quote Again you're ignoring the facts. He threatened to takes his gun and kill him with it and then tried to do just that. He lost his life in a Darwinian fashion and it was completely legal. |
|
He was not in fear for his life. He killed someone for not obeying him. If the exchange was agreed to take place at that residence. He was not trespassing, he was invited. He was no threat, yelling at someone is not a deadly force situation. If you were kept away from your child. you would ether be yelling and angry, or you don't give a shit about your kid. Killing a man that wanted to see his kid at an agreed upon tine and place is somehow okay with some of you There were a million options that didn't involve bringing a gun to the situation. That's what make's it a bad shoot, and I hope that dude spends the rest of his life in a box thinking about that.
|
|
Quoted: So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. View Quote He never tried to take the gun physically until the shooter fired a shot and endangered the life of the dead guy. At what point can dead guy defend himself against unlawful force? He was there for his son. He had a legal right to have custody of his son at that time and place. The shooter was preventing legal custody. Shooter is a murderer. |
|
Quoted: So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”? He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger. He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot. At no point did I see the shooters life in danger. So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. @762AR25 Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is your final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights. |
|
Quoted: He never tried to take the gun physically until the shooter fired a shot and endangered the life of the dead guy. At what point can dead guy defend himself against unlawful force? He was there for his son. He had a legal right to have custody of his son at that time and place. The shooter was preventing legal custody. Shooter is a murderer. View Quote The custody issue has zero to do with the shooting from a legal standpoint. |
|
Quoted: I was reading some of the news articles. They are indicating the shooting was around 4:20PM. On the video, the deceased is saying he was supposed to pick up have his son at 3:15pm. I am interested to see what transpired over that hour. View Quote They argued over what does and doesn’t belong in chili, then they argued about jobs after law school, but when the argument turned to the stoping power of 9mm over .45 that’s when things got deadly serious. |
|
The house belongs to the shooter's parents. Looks like the shooter has a couple businesses registered there so it might be his office too.
Attached File |
|
Quoted: @762AR25 Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is you final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights. View Quote If that's how thin the skin is around here then just remove me and let the liberal crybabies that can't divest their emotions (sympathy for the father in the custody situation) from the facts of the video. We've even had out of state posters mention "first degree murder" which is not a thing in Texas and that about sums up the quality of the opinions from the out of state posters. I take pride in being silenced and censored. |
|
Quoted: The custody issue has zero to do with the shooting from a legal standpoint. View Quote No, it actually has almost everything to do with it. Legal right to be there. Especially if it’s spelled out in the custody agreement. Even a verbal invite to exchange at that place will hold up. I have a feeling you have little to no experience with these types of situations either personally or professionally. |
|
Seems there are some important lessons to learn from this incident:
1) Child custody cases can go sideways really fast. When you introduce peoples' kids into the situation, logic tends to go out the door really fast. Tempers flare quickly when you won't let people be with their kids, or try and take them away. 2) When a homeowner orders you off of their property, comply. Don't argue. Comply. You most likely have no legal right to be there after they tell you to leave. 3) Think twice before you try and wrestle a gun away from someone - especially if you're on their property. That's a dicey proposition and it'll likely not go your way. 4) Think twice before trying to fight someone named Kyle when he has a gun and you don't. It likely won't go your way. This should be self-evident by now. I realize that the video looks bad for the shooter, but if you put yourself into his position, what happened makes sense. Once the guy who's been told to get off of their property tries to take the gun, that's a lethal threat. It's Texas, and given our castle doctrine, I understand why the Kyle wasn't arrested. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but obviously the dead dude should have left the property and then called police in order to facilitate the transfer of the child. Lessons learned for the rest of us. |
|
Quoted: Y'all know what I love about cases like this? Everyone has their opinion and no matter what, won't be persuaded otherwise. View Quote Now I look at confronting someone with a long gun differently. |
|
|
Quoted: The judge wasn't there. She filed for divorce in September. https://www.kcbd.com/2021/11/23/court-records-connect-kyle-carruth-deadly-shooting-chad-read/ In the affidavit, according to the newspaper, Anne-Marie Carruth wrote she was "notified that my husband, William Kyle Carruth, is under investigation for the shooting and killing of his girlfriend's children's father after he attempted to pick up his children late Friday afternoon. My knowledge of the incident is very limited at this time, and it is my understanding that the police are still investigating." View Quote |
|
Quoted: If that's how thin the skin is around here then just remove me and let the liberal crybabies that can't divest their emotions (sympathy for the father in the custody situation) from the facts of the video. We've even had out of state posters mention "first degree murder" which is not a thing in Texas and that about sums up the quality of the opinions from the out of state posters. I take pride in being silenced and censored. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: @762AR25 Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is you final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights. If that's how thin the skin is around here then just remove me and let the liberal crybabies that can't divest their emotions (sympathy for the father in the custody situation) from the facts of the video. We've even had out of state posters mention "first degree murder" which is not a thing in Texas and that about sums up the quality of the opinions from the out of state posters. I take pride in being silenced and censored. I am not saying you can't have a differing opinion than them and I am not censoring you. Hell, your opinion may be right. I don't know. I am just telling to stop calling other people names and trying to instigate fights. Act like an adult please. |
|
Quoted: I thought the guys in the Arbrey case were going to get off since the "jogger" grabbed the gun when it wasn't pointed at him. Now I look at confronting someone with a long gun differently. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Y'all know what I love about cases like this? Everyone has their opinion and no matter what, won't be persuaded otherwise. Now I look at confronting someone with a long gun differently. No one was chasing this guy down a street. This guy was on private property and was ordered to leave. He refuses to do so, he became the aggressor and tried to follow thru with his threat to take his gun and kill him and failed. |
|
Quoted: I can’t read all 10 pages, but one thing folks usually miss in instances like this is who escalated it. The shooter brought a gun out and shot at the dead guy (his feet). That gives dead guy the right to defend himself. So him grabbing the gun is justified as self defense if shooter shooting at his feet was not self defense. This whole thing will center around whether or not the warning shot was justified self defense. This is also why warning shots are a seriously bad idea; how can you claim you shot at his feet because you were in fear for your life? If you’re in fear for your life (imminent), you have time for a warning shot? Warning shots by their nature mean it’s not a life and death situation. If someone shoots at you without justification, you’re entitled to try and grab the gun. This case is also why I’ve said numerous times on this site, NEVER go outside with a gun. If you’re inside your home, stay there and call the police. Nothing good happens when you go outside with a gun. I personally think shooter was in the wrong here and will be someone’s prison bitch for the rest of his life. I don’t know Texas’s provocation law, but this is text book provocation imo. View Quote Personally, I don't think it was a warning shot. The dad was right up close and personal. The PCC guy couldn't bring the rifle up. Trigger was pulled--Most likely ND. This tragedy could have been easily avoided, if ego wasn't in the way. Sure, PCC guy escalated by bring out the rifle, but his property, he can do so. Still, it could have been avoided if the dad stepped back and got off the property. The second the dad bumped PCC guy with threat and after the first shot, PCC guy decided that he would shoot if the dad came at PCC guy again. I didn't see if the dad charged at PCC guy before he was shot....Maybe the dad reacted certain way that PCC guy decided to pull the trigger. After the first shot, if the dad stepped back, raised his hands and de-escalated the situation, I think he would be alive today. |
|
Quoted: No, it actually has almost everything to do with it. Legal right to be there. Especially if it's spelled out in the custody agreement. Even a verbal invite to exchange at that place will hold up. I have a feeling you have little to no experience with these types of situations either personally or professionally. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The custody issue has zero to do with the shooting from a legal standpoint. No, it actually has almost everything to do with it. Legal right to be there. Especially if it's spelled out in the custody agreement. Even a verbal invite to exchange at that place will hold up. I have a feeling you have little to no experience with these types of situations either personally or professionally. |
|
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted: @762AR25 Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is your final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's Texas law in regards to "warning shots"? He fired a warning shot when his life wasn't in danger. He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot. At no point did I see the shooters life in danger. So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. @762AR25 Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is your final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights. ETA- in before 'Boomer' or '13er' is moderated out of existence. |
|
Quoted: No, it actually has almost everything to do with it. Legal right to be there. Especially if it’s spelled out in the custody agreement. Even a verbal invite to exchange at that place will hold up. I have a feeling you have little to no experience with these types of situations either personally or professionally. View Quote A custodial arrangement does not give you the right to trespass, issue a threat on someone's life, and then try to make good on it. And yes, I am a barracks lawyer. But at least I live in the state (about 100 miles away from this location) where this occurred so have a grasp of what the local laws are. Where do you hail from good sir with your "USA" tag? |
|
I suspect if this ever goes to a jury, a lot of the discussion in this thread will be had in the courtroom and during deliberations. There are pretty compelling arguments presented here, going both directions.
Both parties were clearly aggressors and both escalated the situation. Castle doctrine seems to support the shooter, but the fact is that there was no overt physical threat to anyone, until the shooter brought a weapon into the conflict, and thus he created a deadly situation. There are plenty of other factors to consider, and I'm not familiar with the laws in Texas, so this is rank speculation on my part. The laws as written may very well justify him in this, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, with my fate resting on that. If this goes to a jury, my guess is a manslaughter conviction. |
|
Quoted: So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. View Quote Firing at an unarmed man who didn't threaten you, (the warning shot) was criminal. Even though it was dumb, the deceased in my view had a right to attempt to disarm the aggressor at that time. He failed and the aggressor murdered him for doing so. The armed person I troduced deadly force unjustifiably and from that flows no right to self defense. He should get rightfully fucked by law. |
|
|
Quoted: What’s Texas law in regards to “warning shots”? He fired a warning shot when his life wasn’t in danger. He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot. At no point did I see the shooters life in danger. View Quote There are no "Warning Shots" in Texas - you are responsible for EVERY Bullet fired. Once Gun Goes BANG - someone is going to Jail. "Warning Shots" = Felony of "Aggravated Assault w/ a Deadly Weapon" or Felony "Deadly Conduct" (Irresponsible behavior likely to cause death or injury) or in True ARFCOM = BOTH. He could & should easily catch TWO Felony charges (for that one "warning shot" bullet) ... |
|
Quoted: I am not saying you can't have a differing opinion than them and I am not censoring you. Hell, your opinion may be right. I don't know. I am just telling to stop calling other people names and trying to instigate fights. Act like an adult please. View Quote Is "binger" in the dictionary as a personal insult? I'm using the term to compare people who clearly don't recognize the legal right to self defense (specifically in Texas, I don't know/care about other states and keep my piehole shut about other states due to my lack of knowledge on the matter) to another with the same opinion who was just on the national stage so people may be familiar with the name. If I were to call someone a "Biden" because they pretend to have blue collar roots but rub shoulders with billionaires and are in their pocket would that also get me removed from a thread? |
|
Quoted: The custody issue has zero to do with the shooting from a legal standpoint. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: He never tried to take the gun physically until the shooter fired a shot and endangered the life of the dead guy. At what point can dead guy defend himself against unlawful force? He was there for his son. He had a legal right to have custody of his son at that time and place. The shooter was preventing legal custody. Shooter is a murderer. The custody issue has zero to do with the shooting from a legal standpoint. This. I addressed that Child Possession is a CIVIL Matter for the Court. If you EX keeps your kid from you, you document it, go to court and Judge does the punishment. Mad Dad was on a Anger Fit ('Roid Rage or ??) and should have kept his cool, called the cops to document that he was there to pick up his kids and wife was preventing same. He was going crazy about picking them up at 3:30 - In the STANDARD TEXAS CUSTODY AGREEMENT - the "Transfer Time" is defined as 6PM for exchanges. Unless he had something different (in writing) saying otherwise, his going on and on and on raging doesn't mean shit. |
|
Aside from the Binger phrase being absolutely hilarious, this thread/situation is simply tragic. A father wants to see his child, gets loud because the agreement isn't being met and he can't see his child, and he ends up being killed, never to see his child again. I'm sure the other guy/shooter was in fear, but all around, just a sad situation. It's tough to argue against being self defense as it was apparently on the shooters own property and the now deceased but previously raging tried taking his gun from him.
|
|
Quoted: This is pure chickenshit. ETA- in before 'Boomer' or '13er' is moderated out of existence. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's Texas law in regards to "warning shots"? He fired a warning shot when his life wasn't in danger. He then broke contact (was on no danger) and then calmly fired a kill shot. At no point did I see the shooters life in danger. So an angry man trying to take his gun from him to use it on him isn't dangerous? So many of the "Bingers" in this thread seem to either be from liberal/up north states or have their state hidden (can assume they're hiding it to avoid criticism) and it is telling. @762AR25 Please stop calling people "Bingers" because they a deadly force situation differently from you. This is your final warning before you are removed from the thread. Stop trying to instigate fights. ETA- in before 'Boomer' or '13er' is moderated out of existence. I'm sorry you feel that way but it isn't changing anything. |
|
Quoted: What’s with the 6th grade childish insult? lol We can agree to disagree without childish name calling View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol, over your head. Lots of folks believed Joe Horn was guilty as shit. That incident didn’t make it to the court room. I doubt this case will ever make it to the court room either. When you get past feelz and look at facts and law this was justifiable homicide. Lol, ok, boy What’s with the 6th grade childish insult? lol We can agree to disagree without childish name calling If someone is arguing their feelings while ignoring facts, I believe they most likely cannot agree to disagree without childish name calling. |
|
|
Quoted: I thought the guys in the Arbrey case were going to get off since the "jogger" grabbed the gun when it wasn't pointed at him. Now I look at confronting someone with a long gun differently. View Quote The simplest rule for this is don't threaten someone with a gun unless it is time to shoot, and if it's time to shoot you shoot. It is illegal to threaten the use of deadly force without the presence of a threat of death or great bodily harm. |
|
|
|
Why do so many people here equate displaying a gun as an act of aggression?
Does someone open carrying send you into fight or flight mode? Holding a gun is not an act of aggression. Eta: I’m not calling anyone “Bingers”, but I understand the reference. How can members of a gun forum be so obtuse? |
|
Quoted: We've even had out of state posters mention "first degree murder" which is not a thing in Texas and that about sums up the quality of the opinions from the out of state posters. I take pride in being silenced and censored. View Quote Do you take pride in not being able to see that "1st degree murder" as used by many here is a generic charge indicative of the seriousness of the crime? Whether Texas has the same name as any other state is irrelevant. Surely Texas has a murder charge that is similar to that of most states and what reasonable people can accept as "1st degree murder." |
|
|
Quoted: Looks like I need to update my synopsis at the beginning of this thread - was under the impression that Chad (dead guy) was Kyle's wife's ex husband. So Chad was the ex of Kyle's GF? This is craziness. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The judge wasn't there. She filed for divorce in September. https://www.kcbd.com/2021/11/23/court-records-connect-kyle-carruth-deadly-shooting-chad-read/ In the affidavit, according to the newspaper, Anne-Marie Carruth wrote she was "notified that my husband, William Kyle Carruth, is under investigation for the shooting and killing of his girlfriend's children's father after he attempted to pick up his children late Friday afternoon. My knowledge of the incident is very limited at this time, and it is my understanding that the police are still investigating." We're gonna need a flow chart |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.